The market anarchist seeks differing and competing modes of social organization. Market anarchism maintains replacing the state with a decentralized society is desirable because of the feasibility of, and the liberating principles innate to, left-wing free market economics. What better example of voluntary social organization exists than the vast networks emerging on the Internet?

Important here is the concept of information ecology. Information ecology is a system of people, practices, values and technologies in a particular environment (Nardi & O’Day 1999) or community. This idea of information ecology helps us better understand human communication systems and how information moves within them – how is information used, who needs certain types of information, who is impacted by access (or lack there of) of information and what does this mean for our communities? As communication continues its decentralized evolution in the age of the Internet more stakeholders will take active roles in community development, empowering people like never before (Mehra 2009).

Feed 44:

• http://www.c4ss.org/
• http://www.youtube.com/user/c4ssvideos
• https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/c4ss-media/id872405202?mt=2
• http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/smash-walls-radio/c4ss-media?refid=stpr
• https://twitter.com/C4SSmedia

Bitcoin tips welcome:

• 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

The described collaborative nature of inclined labor in the freed market has far-reaching political and socioeconomic implications for our societies. Historical evidence suggests that social and cultural development are dependent upon active participation from people in their local communities (Kretzmann & McKnight 1993). Emerging communication technologies and the spread (and ease of access to) information can lead to a transfer of authority from centralized institutions to neighborhood or community organizations (McCook 2000). Human communication systems play a fundamental role in the empowerment of all people and provide a wide range of benefits to communities (Wilcox 1996). Altruism is alive and well in the Internet age.

The collaborative nature of the Internet, the ease of access to information, and the development of local to global markets over the net are of particular interest to market anarchists. After all, what better place to work on a project with peers, or organize a rebellion? The Molinari Institute website defines market anarchism this way:

Market anarchism is the doctrine that the legislative, adjudicative, and protective functions unjustly and inefficiently monopolised by the coercive State should be entirely turned over to the voluntary, consensual forces of market society.

The market anarchist seeks differing and competing modes of social organization. Market anarchism maintains replacing the state with a decentralized society is desirable because of the feasibility of, and the liberating principles innate to, left-wing free market economics. What better example of voluntary social organization exists than the vast networks emerging on the Internet?

Important here is the concept of information ecology. Information ecology is a system of people, practices, values and technologies in a particular environment (Nardi & O’Day 1999) or community. This idea of information ecology helps us better understand human communication systems and how information moves within them – how is information used, who needs certain types of information, who is impacted by access (or lack there of) of information and what does this mean for our communities? As communication continues its decentralized evolution in the age of the Internet more stakeholders will take active roles in community development, empowering people like never before (Mehra 2009).

The online encyclopedia “Wikipedia,” for example, explicitly restricts corporations or governments from uploading information to its online content, instead allowing only individuals to add, remove or change content on the website (Kaplan 2010). Driving this collaborative effort is the idea that the labor of many individuals leads to better availability of information than any single person or actor could individually achieve (Fama 1970). The idea is that collaborative projects lead to more efficient markets. Collaborative projects enable the creation of information by interested users and are incredibly democratic.

A political example of this democratization is occurring right now in China. Guobin Yang (2003) notes that civil society and the Internet are dependent upon each other. The Internet facilitates the activities of a civil society by creating new markets for citizen participation. Civil society facilitates further development of the Internet by creating the social capital (citizens and citizen groups) for communication and interaction (Yang 2003). This co-evolution of the Internet and society has big implications for China’s model of government (even as the Chinese government attempts to control access to social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook), as Yang explains:

The co-evolution of the Internet and civil society means that political control of the Internet in China will have to take the form of control of civil society as well, and vice versa. Both options are open to the state, but the simultaneous control of the Internet and civil society will add to the difficulty and complexity of control. The co-evolutionary process also means that civil society development will facilitate the democratic uses of the Internet as much as the diffusion of the Internet will shape civil society. This scenario may have long-term consequences for the development of the Internet and civil society in China.

Many more examples of networked decentralization exist across the net.

Human beings are fond of organizing in groups and with new technology we are in the beginning phases of building a global market defined by collaborative social action. The Internet, information technology and falling communication costs provide easy-access to local/regional/global/stigmergic networks. Communication networks are easily coordinated and create ‘‘virtual public spheres’’ (Langman 2005). Virtual public spheres are places in cyberspace where people and information intersect in virtual communities or subcultures (Langman 2005). Communities that are organized and cultivated on the Internet are just as real as the face-to-face interactions humans use on a daily basis. The Internet provides a space where people can acquire and share information as well as interact, debate and negotiate about issues pertaining to society (Langman 2005) – elevating the speech of all individuals, not just those in a position of power, like never before in human history.

The Internet is incredibly empowering – the feedback loop between the Internet and civil society is an engine driving cultural evolution. The rise of global communication, among all tiers of society, will have huge implications for the future of human civilization.

It is important then, for all libertarian theorists, anarchists, and liberty minded individuals to recognize and challenge threats to the Internet. As empowering as network mutualism can be, technology also tends to centralize power – especially as it is the privileged intelligentsia that mainly moves innovation in this field forward. This gives the elite few the power of dominance over the many. Technology is often born in a system of bureaucratic control that champions a social structure based in top-down hierarchies. This is why the democratic nature of the Internet and our virtual public spheres are so unique – they deserve our protection.

Wherever there is human flourishing, rest assured either a state or corporate bureaucrat (often both) discover a system they argue needs taxation, moderation, regulation and/or prohibition. Take Zach Epstein‘s warning  that a new privacy-killing CISPA clone is now a step closer to becoming law. He writes:

We all remember the outrage that swept the Internet and ultimately played a role in defeating CISPA, a proposed law that would have allowed government agencies and tech companies to exchange private information about United States citizens without their knowledge and without a warrant. Well, it’s time to get ready for another round of outrage because CISPA’s controversial successor is now a step closer to becoming law.

He is referring to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014 – approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee in mid-July. The new law (CISA) would allow companies to share private user data with local and federal law enforcement if the claim is made that it relates to any kind of alleged criminal activity. Another piece of legislation allowing the state-corporate apparatus to set-up wiretaps without warrant.

Now take the much more discussed Net-Neutrality debate. The Federal Communications Commission received more than 1 million public comments on the issue of net neutrality during a five-month commenting period for a proposal that would allow cable companies to charge content providers extra fees to deliver faster service. NPR reports it is the biggest public response the FCC has ever gotten on a policy matter in such a short period, and the second most commented-upon FCC issue, period. The overwhelming response from the public was that the internet should remain open in nature to ensure its benefits can be shared by all.

In the same article, however, NPR asks George Washington University law professor Richard Pierce if the record breaking comments will even matter in the long run. Pierce notes that this has been extensively studied by academics and their research shows that rule-making or policymaking tends to be systemically biased to favor the industries that are affected by the regulation. NPR reports:

In a recent example, Pierce points to the work of Kimberly Krawiec. Krawiec read all of the comments that were submitted in the rule-making that led to the Volcker rule — part of the Dodd-Frank Act’s banking reforms. She also reviewed the logs that described the meetings that agency decision makers had with parties who were interested in the outcome of that proceeding. Krawiec found that, while proponents of strict regulation of financial institutions dominated the comment process numerically, their comments were useless to decision makers, because the vast majority of them were identical form letters without data or analysis.

The folks who do comment with the detail, data and analysis that can change minds? Deep-pocketed industries.

The academic conclusion: Research (and history) shows public comments do not affect outcomes – money talks. But, our speech is empowered like never before over the net. The best thing we can do for the Internet is to keep up the trend of decentralization. So far, the national debate has presented us with only two options:

1. We need the state to protect us from losing the internet to corporate control via regulation and legislative decree, or
2. We need the state to protect moneyed interests so corporations can practice their rights in the (state) capitalist market.

We must remember there is a third option – maintain common, mutual control over the net.

By the very nature of information ecology, we can keep the Internet innovative and free. All battles against the state and capital are uphill but we are all empowered by the Internet. As the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) notes, as long as we continue to build and provide access to new market opportunities and create safe havens for free speech, the Internet will continue to empower and equalize horizontal social organization as opposed to vertical, top down hierarchies around the globe.

We are winning, simply because we talk and are inclined to labor with one another.

Information technologies are allowing for revolutions in markets, thus effecting business, government and global culture. For the first time in human history there is truly global communication. Though it is still a large privilege to have access to the Internet, more and more people, of many different socio-economic statuses, are crossing the digital divide and beginning to talk. As Tim Malone writes in The Future of Work about the coming revolution:

The new revolution promises to lead to a further transformation in our thinking about control. Where does power come from? Who should wield it? Who is responsible? Once again the result will be in a world where people have more freedom. A world in which power and control are spread more widely than our industrial aged ancestors would have ever thought possible…

Dispersed physically but connected by technology, workers are now able, on a scale never before imaginable, to make their own decisions using information gathered from many other people and places.

As Malone points out, emerging orders in society will continue the trend of decentralization. If left in common control the net will continually become democratic, highly organized, structured and efficient – it will be anarchic progress.

There has been a constant push throughout human history to decentralize when the time is optimal. The emergence of democracy, for example, shows off this trait. Now, in an era of low communication costs and emerging technologies, we may see enhanced social evolution, a stronger push to decentralize and the emergence of small social networks that can cause big changes in how we live our everyday lives. Information technology is beginning to impact our neighborhoods, cities, work places and governance. We are connected and, with each blog, tweet, event, post or review, prove we are not neutral, but instead are revolutionaries for network mutualism.

Works Cited:

Fama, E. F. (1970) Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work. Journal of Finance, vol. 25 no. 2, 383—417.

Kaplan, Andres and Michael Hanlein. (2010) Users of the World Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of  Social Media. Business Horizons.

Kretzmann, J. P. & L. McKnight. (1993) Building Communities From the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Communities Assests. Institute for Policy Research.

Langman, Lauren. (2005)From Virtual Public Spheres to Global Justice: A Critical Theory of Internetworked Social Movements. American Sociological Association.

Malone, Thomas W. (2004) The Future of Work. Harvard Business School Press

McCook, K. (2007) A Place at the Table: Participating in Community Building. ALA Editions.

Mehta, Bharat & Ann Peterson Bishop. (2004) The Internet for Empowerment of Minority and Margenalized Users. New Media and Society Vol6 (6):781–802

Mehra, Bharat and Ramesh Srinivasan. (2007) The Library-Community Convergence Framework for Community Action: Libraries as Catalysts of Social Change. Libri, vol. 57,  123–139.

Nardi, B & V. O’Day. (1996) Information Ecologies: Using Information with Heart. MIT Press.

Wilcox D. (1996) Inventing the Future – Communities in the Information Society. NCVO.

Yang, Guobin. (2003) The Co-Evolution of the Internet and Civil Society in China. University of California Press, vol. XLIII, no. 3.

Lo stato brasiliano vuole acquisire i dati biometrici di oltre 140 milioni di elettori in modo da rendere le prossime elezioni “sicure”. Per arrivare a ciò si pensa che sia necessario catalogare le impronte digitali di tutte le dita, la fotografia e la firma di ogni persona. Il nuovo certificato elettorale riflette queste informazioni. Senza questo certificato, lo stato non può imporre l’embargo economico contro l’individuo, che a questo punto non potrà più richiedere un passaporto per scappare dal paese.

Il certificato elettorale non è che uno dei tanti strumenti di identificazione e sorveglianza nelle mani del governo brasiliano: la carta d’identità (che tutti dovrebbero portare sempre con sé), il CPF (il codice fiscale brasiliano), la patente di guida, il certificato che attesta il servizio militare o l’esenzione (obbligatorio per gli uomini), il libretto di lavoro, il passaporto, il certificato di nascita, il certificato di matrimonio…

Uno pensa che il governo ha già abbastanza informazioni sui suoi soggetti ma, apparentemente, il bisogno di rendere “sicura” la “celebrazione della democrazia” vuole che la gente dia informazioni ancora più personali alle autorità. Se occorrono tutte queste informazioni per rendere il voto sicuro, non è che le elezioni passate erano una frode? Chissà.

Ovviamente è tutta una finzione, una cortina di fumo che serve a nascondere l’ennesimo passo verso la concentrazione del potere totalitario nelle mani dello stato. La scusa relativamente innocua delle elezioni sicure è solo un precedente messo su per garantire allo stato un potere di controllo della popolazione ancora più ampio e, più in là, chiedere ulteriori informazioni private.

Niente di tutto ciò è necessario. Neanche l’obbligo di voto è necessario. Lo stato continua a far finta che l’obiettivo sia garantire elezioni esenti da frodi quando, in realtà, potrebbe benissimo abolire l’obbligo di voto e smetterla di punire chi non vota. Senza l’obbligo di voto, le ragioni alla base della schedatura degli elettori sono irrilevanti.

La più grande ironia è che il Brasile avrà, teoricamente, un sistema di identificazione sicurissimo e, allo stesso tempo, un sistema di voto elettronico immune da contestazioni. È praticamente impossibile sapere se la macchinetta elettorale non è soggetta a frode, visto che non esiste un sistema indipendente di verifica e revisione, né esiste una ricevuta per l’elettore. La macchinetta è una scatola nera, contestata solo da frange estreme dell’élite, come Leonel Brizola, deriso e disprezzato ogni volta che sollevava dubbi al proposito.

Questo è il sistema elettorale perfetto per la classe di governo: Combina il massimo della sorveglianza, l’obbligo di voto che garantisce un’affluenza altissima, e nessuna possibilità di verifica e conteggio indipendenti. Legittimità totale dello stato, dunque, e nessun dubbio sul suo potere.

Il sogno del totalitarismo tropicale morbido.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

The Brazilian state intends to acquire the biometric data from more than 140 million voters in order to make our next elections “secure.” For that goal, it is supposedly necessary to collect, from every person, the fingerprints from all fingers, their picture and signature. The new voter registration card is produced reflecting the newly collected information. Without this card, the state directs an economic embargo against the individual — who is no longer able to get a passport to flee from the country.

The voter card is but one of the many tools of identification and surveillance the Brazilian government possesses: ID (which should be carried at all times by every person), CPF (the registration to the federal revenue service), driver’s license, military enlisting or dispensation certificate (mandatory for men), employment record book, passport, birth certificate, marriage certificate …

One would think the government should have sufficient information about its subjects, but, apparently, the need to make voting “secure” for the “celebration of democracy” requires people to turn over even more of their private data to the authorities. If so much information is necessary for us to have secure voting, is it possible that our previous elections have been a fraud? We are left to wonder.

Of course, all of this is but a lie, a smokescreen designed to distract from the fact that this is another step towards total power concentration in the state. The relatively innocuous purpose of guaranteeing clean elections is just a precedent put in place so that the government can amass even more power to control the population and, down the line, demand even more private information.

None of this is necessary. It is also not necessary that voting should continue to be mandatory in Brazil. The state continues to pretend that its purpose is to guarantee elections free of fraud when, in fact, it could easily just end the obligation to vote and stop punishing those who do not. Without mandatory voting, the argument to relist the voting population is irrelevant.

The biggest Brazilian irony is that we will have, theoretically, an extremely safe identification system while, on the other hand, we have an electronic voting system immune to contestation. It is virtually impossible to know if the electronic ballot box is not prone to fraud, since there are no independent means of verification and auditing, and no physical voting receipts. The Brazilian electronic voting is a black box, whose only opponents are those on the fringes of the ruling elite, such as Leonel Brizola, who are promptly laughed at and scorned should they raise any doubts over it.

This is a perfect electoral system for the ruling class: It combines maximum surveillance, mandatory voting which guarantees very large turnout, and no possibility of independent verification and recounting. Therefore, we have total legitimacy for the state and no questioning of its power.

It is the dream of the gentle tropical totalitarianism.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, Totalitarismo Identificativo.

Não há nada tão engraçado como a visão dos funcionários autoritários de uma ordem fenecente tentando reprimir uma revolução que não entendem — e fracassando miseravelmente.

A tentativa do Departamento de Estado de censurar arquivos imprimíveis de armas de fogo em 3-D doDEFCAD é a mais recente — e uma das mais divertidamente hilariantes — tentativa dos Senhores da Escassez de tentarem entender a revolução da Abundância que ameaça o poder deles. Menos de um dia depois de o DEFCAD ser forçado a removê-los, os arquivos apareceram em A Baía dos Piratas e Mega. Este último caso é especialmente engraçado; Kim Dotcom está provavelmente morrendo de rir a respeito.

Qualquer pessoa que já tenha ouvido falar do Efeito Streisand poderá ter contado a você que isso aconteceria. Tentar suprimir informação na Internet só faz chamar mais a atenção para a informação original — que permanece facilmente disponível — e outrossim deixar constrangido o pretenso supressor na medida em que a tentativa de supressão torna-se, em si, uma narrativa. Já perdi a conta do número de pessoas, ontem, que disse nunca ter ouvido de Cody Wilson ou de armas de fogo imprimíveis em 3-D antes da história da ação do Departamento de Estado tornar-se conhecida, mas pretendia ir à Baía dos Piratas – TPB e verificar. Graças aos não pretendidos esforços promocionais do governo dos Estados Unidos, provavelmente cem ou mil vezes mais pessoas sabem onde obter os arquivos imprimíveis de armas de fogo de Cody Wilson, em comparação com antes.

Nada obstante, os bocós que se congratularam há poucos dias a propósito de tirar do ar aqueles arquivos de armas de fogo imprimíveis não são exatamente o tipo de pessoa que você suporia ter ouvido falar do Efeito Streisand — obviamente. São como o parceiro do comediante que recita as frases que dão ao comediante a oportunidade de fazer piadas nessa peça, atuando só para nosso divertimento. São como a Matrona da Sociedade que entra no salão de jantar num curta dos Três Patetas e demanda: “Qual é o significado disto?!!” Para eles, a Internet é apenas uma grande Série de Tubos, e tudo o que eles têm a fazer é fechar uma válvula em algum lugar para controlar o fluxo de informação. Acontece apenas que a Internet não funciona assim. Na memorável frase de John Gilmore, ela trata a censura como estrago e a contorna.

Lembram-se do gracejo de Joe Biden acerca de “furto” de “propriedade intelectual” não ser diferente de “assalto-relâmpago na Macy’s”? A abordagem do governo dos Estados Unidos em relação ao DEFCAD ilustra a mesma fundamental concepção equivocada. Trata informação digital infinitamente replicável como se fosse bem finito e excluível existindo numa localização física, sobre a qual alguém pode exercer controle ou posse física do mesmo modo que se fosse apenas um sapato ou uma cadeira.

A lógica jurídica deles — legislação de controle da exportação — exibe o mesmo fracasso conceptual. Eles não conseguem entender que os “bens” que o DEFCAD estava “exportando” chegavam a seus portos de destino em todo o mundo no mesmo segundo durante o qual era feito o upload dos arquivos para o website.

Um arquivo digital pode ser replicado infinitamente com custo marginal próximo de zero; o mesmo padrão de informação pode existir num número ilimitado de lugares simultaneamente. Vê só? Acabo de fazer isso com a função copiar-colar de meu browser. Tente fazer o mesmo com a joalheria do Macy’s. Não é possível “furtar” uma canção ou um filme digital — o ato de replicação não afeta as cópias já na posse de outras pessoas, mas apenas aumenta o número de cópias no mundo. Eis porque copiar não caracteriza furto. Analogamente, você não consegue privar o mundo de acesso à informação mediante remover a cópia em um website.

Olhar para essas pessoas que ficam tentando usar ferramentas conceptuais da era da escassez para combater a abundância é como olhar Napoleão tentar derrotar Heinz Guderian ou Erwin Rommel com canhões em cima de duas rodas e infantaria em massa em formações de linha e coluna. Eles não detém as ferramentas conceptuais para entender, menos ainda para combater, a nova sociedade cujo nascimento estão tentando impedir.

Eis porque as tentativas do governo para impor escassez artificial falham toda vez, independentemente de quantas vezes ele lhes mude o nome — ACTA, CISPA, etc. — e tente de novo. Não há como consertar a estupidez.

Assim, para vocês, Senhores da Escassez — representados desta vez por seus lacaios nos Departamentos de Estado e de “Defesa” dos Estados Unidos, tenho uma mensagem: Vocês não têm nenhuma autoridade que devamos respeitar.

Artigo original afixado por Kevin Carson em 12 de maio de 2013.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.

The State Department’s attempt to censor 3-D printable gun files from DEFCAD is the latest — and one of the most gut-bustingly hilarious — attempts by the Lords of Scarcity to wrap their minds around the revolution of Abundance that threatens their power. Less than a day after DEFCAD was forced to remove them, the files appeared on The Pirate Bay and Mega. The latter is especially funny; Kim Dotcom is probably laughing himself silly over it.

Anyone who’s ever heard of the Streisand Effect could have told you this would happen. Attempting to suppress information on the Internet just draws more attention to the original information — which remains readily available — as well as embarrassing the would-be suppressor as the attempt at suppression becomes a story in its own right. I lost count of the number of people yesterday who said they’d never heard of Cody Wilson or 3-D printable guns until the story of the State Department’s action came out, but intended to go to TPB and check it out. Thanks to the U.S. government’s inadvertent promotional efforts, probably a hundred or a thousand times more people know where to get Cody Wilson’s printable gun files than did before.

But the clowns who congratulated themselves a couple days ago over shutting down those printable gun files aren’t exactly the sort of people you’d expect to have heard of the Streisand Effect — obviously. They’re the straight men in this piece, just performing for our amusement. They’re like the Society Matron who walks into the dining hall in a Three Stooges short and demands “What is the meaning of this?!!” To them the Internet is just a big Series of Tubes, and all they have to do is shut off a valve somewhere to control the flow of information. Only the Internet doesn’t work that way. In the memorable phrasing of John Gilmore, it treats censorship as damage and routes around it.

Remember Joe Biden’s quip about “theft” of “intellectual property” being no different from a “smash-and-grab at Macy’s”? The U.S. government’s approach to DEFCAD illustrates the same fundamental misconception. It treats infinitely replicable digital information as if it were a finite, excludable good existing in one physical location, that one can exert physical control or possession over just like a shoe or a chair.

Their legal rationale — export control legislation — displays the same conceptual failure. They couldn’t quite grasp that the “goods” that DEFCAD was “exporting” arrived in their destination ports around the world the second the files were uploaded to the website.

A digital file can be replicated infinitely at near-zero marginal cost; the same pattern of information can exist in an unlimited number of places simultaneously. A digital file can be replicated infinitely at near-zero marginal cost; the same pattern of information can exist in an unlimited number of places simultaneously. See? I just did that with the copy-and-paste function of my browser. Try doing that with jewelry from Macy’s. You can’t “steal” a digital song or movie — the act of replication doesn’t affect the copies already in others’ possession, but only increases the number of copies in the world. That’s why copying is not theft. Likewise, you can’t deny the world access to information by removing the copy from one website.

Watching these people try to use scarcity-age conceptual tools to combat abundance is like watching Napoleon try to defeat Heinz Guderian or Erwin Rommel with hub-to-hub artillery and massed infantry in line-and-column formations. They lack the conceptual tools to understand, let alone fight, the new society they’re attempting to prevent the birth of.

This is why the government’s attempts to impose artificial scarcity fail every time, no matter how many times they change the name — ACTA, CISPA, etc. — and try again. You can’t fix stupid.

So to you Lords of Scarcity — represented this time around by your flunkies in the U.S. Departments of State and “Defense,” I have a message: You have no authority that we are bound to respect.

Translations for this article:

• Portuguese, Governo dos Estados Unidos versus DEFCAD: É Impossível Consertar a Estupidez.

For more than a year and a half, C4SS has been maintaining a Tor relay node with a freedom friendly data center in the Netherlands. The relay is part of a global network dedicated to the idea that a free society requires freedom of information. Since June 2011 C4SS has continuously added nearly 10 Mbps of bandwidth to the network (statistics).

Although we can’t know, by design, what’s passed through the relay, it’s entirely likely that it has facilitated communications by revolutionaries, agorists, whistleblowers, journalists working under censorious regimes and many more striving to advance the cause of liberty.

Operating the node does come at a cost. Just under $150 of hosting will cover the relay for the next six months.

If you believe, as we do, that Tor is one of the technologies that’s serving to make both state and corporate oppression not only obsolete, but impossible, please click through and contribute today.

The State is damage, liberty will route around!

All the best,
-C4SS

P.S. The hardcore can send bitcoins to 1DnumwHUq1uGp1c4sRasbXipvkMNsy7ixg.

It is because of this change in direction that we will have to cut our drive for funding the C4SS Tor Node short. The Chipin widget has had some trouble updating, but as it stands now the drive is 24% complete or we have reaised $62. That leaves only $188 to go. I think we can do this, we can reach this goal.

C4SS relies on micro-donations. So we are not asking for much per person – $5 from 38 supporters would be enough. We are asking for swarms.

Please consider an $5 dollar donation and help C4SS play its part in maintaining online anonymity networks.

For over a year, C4SS has been hosting a Tor relay node. Hosted at a freedom-friendly data center in the Netherlands, the relay is part of a global network dedicated to the idea that a free society requires freedom of information. Since June 2011 we’ve continuously added nearly 10 Mbps of bandwidth to the network (statistics). And although we can’t know, by design, what’s passed through the relay, it’s entirely likely that it has facilitated communications by revolutionaries, agorists, whistleblowers, journalists working under censorious regimes and many more striving to advance the cause of liberty.

Operating the node does come at a cost. The hosting will cost C4SS just under $250 for for six months.

If you believe, as we do, that Tor is one of the technologies that’s serving to make both state and corporate oppression not only obsolete, but impossible, please click through and contribute today.

All the best,
-C4SS

To be sure, misinformation isn’t a solved problem, but the tools are there and the way is easier to find than before.

Everyone knows about Wikileaks now, and the site has even featured documents that show the US government has plans for dealing with them. But so far Wikileaks is winning.

Today’s landscape of information has other features, of course. There are numerous alternative news sites that cater to a variety of concerns. LibertyActivism.info provides a libertarian library where users can view books, flyers, and how-tos, as well as upload files they find valuable. YouTube and cheap recording devices democratize video broadcasting — what once took a studio can now be done on widely-owned equipment. Podcasts sidestep the FCC and corporate directors, and the Liberty Radio Network provides a ready-made programming schedule for the pirate radio operator.

But what role is there for the current media establishment? It can be used as leverage by content producers, as seen when Wikileaks made agreements with major news companies concerning its Afghan War Diary files. And user-generated news will certainly influence established media from the outside as it struggles to adapt to a changing environment. Blogging communities, Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking tools are obviously useful in spreading ideas and creating connections. But when they are used to spread news stories that users find interesting, feedback is provided from users to producers. And the reader who posts the stories that interest her takes a more active role in deciding what is important than she does when viewing the arrangement of newspaper headlines or broadcast airtime.

It is easy to see the negative side of information democracy when establishment media picks up one narrative it finds in the blogosphere and throws its weight behind a particular kind of sensationalism. But the media can pick up on sensationalism from any source and has in the past published the falsehoods of government reports. The new information landscape makes the generation of untruth more accessible, but also makes it easier to counter false claims.

What the current information landscape represents is an inkling of a free society in practice. Cheap startup costs and the distribution of knowledge foster nearly unlimited competition. Trust can be verified by sourcing (which makes news research more participatory), by recommendation from trusted services (which is based on individual choice and reputation, not on legislative mandates), and by peer recommendation. This is good news for those of us who don’t trust the authorities to put our interests ahead of the interests of those who make a living by advising them.

With the spread of knowledge this state of affairs can be brought into other areas of life — from the meeting of basic needs, to the creation of resilient communities that foster individual flourishing, to the most ambitious projects. From the existing information infrastructure we can build up the skills to take care of human needs, and promote while refining the ideas that motivate people to learn and practice these skills.